"Affordable Shipping for All Act"

[HiloJulie]

"Can you help us find that in the 1958 document you provided?  It seems to address the labeling but I do not see where it dictates the computation of the charges.  3-F-3 seems to be the relevant section and there is nothing about "averaging" or "equalizing".  I don't see those words anywhere in the document."

While there is no specific verbiage directly addressing the equalizing of destination charges, the issue comes down to the specifics of the law, which states:

• Every manufacturer of new automobiles distributed in commerce shall, prior to the delivery of any new automobile to any dealer, or at or prior to the introduction date of new models delivered to a dealer prior to such introduction date, securely affix to the windshield, or side window of such automobile a label...
  

So, it comes down to where the "window sticker" is attached, which by law, is where it's made. It would therefore be utterly impossible for the manufacturer to know where each car is being shipped to when its assembled. 

Further, the law for the first time actually required a "window sticker." Prior to the law being enacted, vehicles did not have any form of pricing displayed on them and a dealer could charge whatever they wanted to. Back then, you COULD actually order a specific car and get a confirmed build date and go to Detroit and take delivery of it, sans no destination charge. That outraged dealers to no end.

Ironically the impetus of the law was extensive lobbying by the dealers against the auto makers. While investigating that claim, Congress found significant deceptive financial practices by the dealers. In the end, the law was to provide transparency to the consumer with respect to automobile pricing and make it a level playing field.

[Punatang]

"Can you help us find that in the 1958 document you provided?  It seems to address the labeling but I do not see where it dictates the computation of the charges.  3-F-3 seems to be the relevant section and there is nothing about "averaging" or "equalizing".  I don't see those words anywhere in the document."

While there is no specific verbiage directly addressing the equalizing of destination charges, the issue comes down to the specifics of the law, which states:

• Every manufacturer of new automobiles distributed in commerce shall, prior to the delivery of any new automobile to any dealer, or at or prior to the introduction date of new models delivered to a dealer prior to such introduction date, securely affix to the windshield, or side window of such automobile a label...
  

So, it comes down to where the "window sticker" is attached, which by law, is where it's made. It would therefore be utterly impossible for the manufacturer to know where each car is being shipped to when its assembled. 

Further, the law for the first time actually required a "window sticker." Prior to the law being enacted, vehicles did not have any form of pricing displayed on them and a dealer could charge whatever they wanted to. Back then, you COULD actually order a specific car and get a confirmed build date and go to Detroit and take delivery of it, sans no destination charge. That outraged dealers to no end.

Ironically the impetus of the law was extensive lobbying by the dealers against the auto makers. While investigating that claim, Congress found significant deceptive financial practices by the dealers. In the end, the law was to provide transparency to the consumer with respect to automobile pricing and make it a level playing field.

LOL weak sauce!  You never let anyone get away with anything like the above Julie.  =)  You're tap dancing to no music.  It's a rule about a label.  You put the shipping charge on the label.  You charge what you charge.  There is no averaging or anything like what you are trying to assign to this document.  Nice try.  Even if you were correct, and you are not, it would still be govt meddling in private business.  A great legal mind like yours knows better than presenting irrelevant information.  No amount of lipstick can help your pig.  =)

[HiloJulie]

"LOL weak sauce!  You never let anyone get away with anything like the above Julie.  =)  You're tap dancing to no music.  It's a rule about a label.  You put the shipping charge on the label.  You charge what you charge.  There is no averaging or anything like what you are trying to assign to this document.  Nice try.  Even if you were correct, and you are not, it would still be govt meddling in private business.  A great legal mind like yours knows better than presenting irrelevant information.  No amount of lipstick can help your pig.  =)"

Well, I guess you told me!

Go research the law and specifically the "Monroney Sticker." You can even use the Google to help!

And then, maybe check into what the term "Destination Charge" and how automobile manufactures compute them and then, by law, charge for it. Also, check into that ever since The Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958 was signed into law, all destination charges became equalized by the automobile manufacturers to all States, and US Territories even including Alaska and Hawaii.

Afterwards, just maybe, the lipstick on this pig might look really good to you, but I don't want to make MyManao jealous.

ETA: Putting some fresh lipstick on this pig, I'll add this for a bit more clarity. 

The "Monroney Sticker," or The Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958 law requires that the destination charge always gets listed as a separate line item on a new-car window sticker. Thus, the destination charge is fixed and ensures that new car buyers pay equally to cover the cost of delivering a vehicle to a dealership. Manufacturers typically set a car’s destination charge on a model year basis. New car buyers pay the charge regardless of whether the dealership is near or far from the vehicle assembly plant.

[Punatang]

Why should I research irrelevant ideas when you could have just posted the relevant documents to support your assertions instead of one that was about labels?  I'm not that interested in your idea and you already wasted a bunch of my time looking for things that were not in the irrelevant document that you posted.  Respectfully.

   

[HiloJulie]

"...irrelevant ideas..."

I am not all that surprised you find facts and current law "irrelevant."

But, judging by your mostly subliminal gloating since Monday, I fully understand your position.

[Obie]

The US Postal Service ended its contract with UPS. What will happen to your packages?
After their contract expired, the United States Postal Service will no longer deliver UPS SurePost packages.

The contract expired at the beginning of the year, according to Logistics Management. A union representing UPS delivery drivers called The International Brotherhood of Teamsters confirmed the end of the contract in a Facebook post.

What does this mean for your packages? Will it impact deliveries? Here’s what to know.
If your delivery service is UPS, there’s a chance you might receive your packages earlier than you expect.

According to a USA Today story, your SurePost packages delivered in the U.S. may arrive a day earlier. Why? The contract between USPS and UPS is ending, so the transit time will decrease from two to seven days to two to six days.

Are there cost increases to UPS SurePost packages now?
UPS announced SurePost surcharges effective Jan. 13 that included roughly 10% more for packages 9 pounds and under, 6–7% for packages weighing 10–70 pounds, and 62–69% for extended deliveries to rural and low-density area customers, according to an industry analyst (via Logistics Management).

Will SurePost no longer be available?
According to Supply Chain Dive, SurePost will no longer be available for PO Box and Military APO/FPO deliveries. SurePost will also no longer be available in these areas:
U.S. Territories
Alaska
Hawaii
Puerto Rico
However, other UPS delivery services, like Ground, Second Day Air, and Next Day Air, will still be available in these areas.

[Punatang]

"...irrelevant ideas..."

I am not all that surprised you find facts and current law "irrelevant."

But, judging by your mostly subliminal gloating since Monday, I fully understand your position.

When you go low with personal attacks,  I will go high. I will excuse your lashing and acting out as I am sure that the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing is extreme and we want to bring you all back into the fold as gently as possible.

[HiloJulie]

When you go low with personal attacks,  I will go high. I will excuse your lashing and acting out as I am sure that the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing is extreme and we want to bring you all back into the fold as gently as possible.

I think you should reexamine who went low with a personal attacks here.

But then again, deny, deflect, blame everyone else, the hallmarks of today!

As I said, I am not surprised, but I fully understand!

Now, speaking of “equalized shipping costs” how come I can mail a First-Class letter from my PO Box of 1234 in Kurtistown to PO Box 1235 in Kurtistown for the same cost as I can mail it to New York City?

Damn meddling government!

[Rob Tucker]

Just a reminder: There is a dedicated topic for bickering.

[Chas]

I think the whole forum has turned into bickering...